Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Put yourself in his boots: See if you have what it takes to lead a Civil War army

Generals had to excel in organizing and leading armies (LOC)

Your men are dog
tired from an overnight 12-mile march. A subordinate is ill, and his
replacement is not battle-tested. Horses and mules are hungry and the patter of
rain is turning into a downpour. You can’t remember your last night of decent
sleep.

The pressure is on
for a significant victory to stem the recent fortunes of your enemy. Attack
now? Move to another position? Await further orders?

What would YOU do?

Armchair historians
and casual observers of the Civil War on Feb. 9 will have the opportunity to
sit in the saddle of an army commander and ponder the myriad decisions that
must be made.

Chuck Teague

Public historian
Charles Teague, a seasonal ranger at Gettysburg National Military Park, will
give a talk entitled “So You Think You Could Command a Civil War Army?,” one of
20 such presentations during the park’s winter lecture series.

The free series begins this Saturday, Jan. 4, and
continues through March 9. Topics include the Battle of the Crater, Sherman’s
March to the Sea and the Atlanta Campaign.

Teague’s talk will
examine the challenges facing commanders -- at one time or another in 1864,
there were 18 armies in the field varying in size from 7,000 to 70,000 soldiers
– and the attributes needed for success.

“This
is really a difficult, trying responsibility these army commanders (face), with
hundreds of decisions to be made, with any one that can go awry and end with
calamity,” Teague, 66, recently told the Picket.

The
retired Air Force chaplain, a past president of the Civil War Roundtable of
Gettysburg, makes it clear he will not assign letter grades to famous generals
or give a definitive assessment -- though he will discuss some of their
strengths and weaknesses.

“It is natural in
such discussions that the focus moves to rating and ranking the various army
commanders,” said Teague. “My program is actually intended to prompt folks not
to be so quick to criticize them, to forestall knee-jerk judgments in sorting
out geniuses from jerks.”

Teague will explore
why certain decisions or actions occurred on the battlefield.

Robert E. Lee

American
military commanders learned from their experiences in the Mexican-American War,
the Crimean War and from Napoleon’s campaigns.

For
many, the Civil War was their first time in the military. They were learning on
the job and reading manuals, “seeking to know each other’s thoughts.”

“None
of them realized how vast the conflict would be and how bloody it would be and
the development of technology along the way,” said Teague. “Early in the war,
you win by posturing. That kind of mentality did not last through the war.”

Logistics,
he said, was a key part of command. Lee, Grant and Sherman were attuned to
these issues. That included providing proper equipment, uniforms and weapons, sufficient
food for man and beast, and establishing a reliable payroll system.

Sherman,
Teague said, made fantastic use of railroads while deep in Confederate
territory. His army lived off the land, consuming huge amounts of meat and
water. A large force could chew through 40,000 potatoes, alone, a day.

Proper
organization and drill of the army – including the selection of staff and the
method of issuing orders – is crucial. But that quality alone is not enough.

“(Joseph)
Hooker and (George) McClellan were exceptional in equipping, training and
arming their armies. Neither one proved capable on the battlefield of real
victory.”

Naturally,
the talk will focus on leadership and delegation, the ability to devise new
tactics to face difficult challenges.

Proper logistics a crucial requirement (Library of Congress)

“Lee
had the idea that as many men as possible should be at the front line,” said
Teague.

The
commander believed in a small staff. Later on that became a problem. “His staff
could not analyze the intelligence that was coming.”

The
Union’s dependable George Thomas organized a modern staff.

“Some
Civil War commanders were more impulsive… Thomas sometimes was slow, but he was
very thorough. Part of that was developing his staff,” Teague said.

Inadequate
information on the battlefield made decisions difficult, he added.

“The
friction of battle and the fog of war are both very applicable. When things
don’t go your way, how quickly can you respond and overcome them?”

George Thomas

For
example, Grant, after momentary setbacks at Shiloh and Spotsylvania, “could
still very clearly and very effectively change things. Many generals couldn’t.”
He cited a befuddled Hooker at Chancellorsville.

The
final portion of Teague’s lecture will highlight 12 attributes for effective
command. Among them are moral character and mental fortitude (George Meade),
decisiveness in a crisis and discernment. “You are not just guessing.”

The
Civil War had many good generals. But only a few had the skills, acumen and
intelligence to excel at nearly all levels.

“I
hope (lecture participants) come away with a deeper appreciation of the burden
and responsibility that the commanders had -- and be not so quick to judge,” Teague
said.